alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
796 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OpinlOB HO. O-19 

Ret Should a tra 

Ilo are in reo 

relqusetfng tha oplnlon 

l beve qUOStiOB. 

ter of rooeat date, 

at, touohing the 

a-l, VOEBOB’B ABBOhe. ) tau .c. 8.. 

bus“ 8rn roum8t 

thin the limita 

towns or suburseotfoa 8s of this aat PXWIO~~W fh* amud 

llosnoo foes for the reglrtration of Protor %U608* 

The firet paragraph of your lotter read8 an 
Hon. Hcxmr Garrison, Jr., Pug8 8 

f OllowS a 

“Ia riew of the faot t&t w8 are hava a 

nrrc;ber of oo@aints about travel bureau autoniobiles operating withcut regulation or waponmibillty and osrrying paeuongore for hire betwaen lnoorporstea tawne and oltlea, we are aekImthat 9ou pleuse Rive ua an opinion on whsther or not a travel bureau oehlola, hauling 

paase.y:orrr for hire, should ba ohargsa Sor the 

motor bus llcenee end the seating tax a8 provia8a in t3eotions 6 aa 8a of xo~ss Rill 6, chtip. 

fs, p. 178, General mm~seoond iiiilt3a 3tmion, 

rorty-first 18f&Whtme." 

The queetIon a8 subtitted is h9pothetIoal to a 

greut cxtent ta whleh we axe unable to give a oate&orlcal 

antn90rg flante&lg, it is a question of feat &B to whether a travel bureau, or un9 individu61, flnz or oorporation, operated motor vehicle6 wIthIn the purvIow of the 

above statute. CertaInl9 if a 'xotor *ehIole ia operated 

by a travel bureau in tramporting persona In the gamer 

set out in the atatute for aonpensatlon or hire, whether 

over flrsa routes or otherwiie, it should be oharged for 

the caotor .bur lloeme as provided ia the above sot. It 

sill lIkewIse be subjeot to other rsgulatorp stattites pertaining to the operation of motor vehioleo In such rcanuer. 

The taots alone ecrn reeolvo the question. 

lfo will gladly render 9ou a full opinion touohlr& 

the ratter Lf 9cu doala to subnit 'to ua addlticnal faoto 

perteiting tbcroto. 

ZCPJ IA% APPROVEDm 23, 1940 

j$@J&w 

A ORXEY GENERAL '03 TEXAS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7245
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR RICO GUTIERREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-232, CA-96-2444-2-11) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Rico Gutierrez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's orders granting his motion for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 1985 & Supp. 1997), imposing a new sentence, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, deny Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gutierrez , Nos. CR-90-232; CA-96-2444-2-11 (D.S.C. June 9, 1997 & Aug. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
mmpw_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.2
 
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
  
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made as of November 19, 2015 by and between Multimedia Platforms, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") and Robert Blair (the "Executive"). 
 
W I T N E S S E T H. 
 
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2015 (the "Employment Agreement") (capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Employment Agreement); and 
 
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 
1. Section 2.03(d)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the entire section thereof and replacing it with the following: 
 
(iii) "NON-COMPETE TERM" means, in the case of termination for any reason, the period from the Effective Date to the date ending 2 years following the date of termination.
 
2. Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement and all of its terms and conditions remain in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects, except that on or after the date of this Amendment all references in the Employment Agreement to "this Employment Agreement," "hereto," "hereof," "hereunder," or words of like import shall mean the Employment Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 
 
3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and such counterpart together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 
4. This Amendment, including the validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Amendment, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada applicable to agreements made and to be performed in such State, without regard to such State's conflicts of law principles. 
 
12. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. 
 
[remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
 
	 
	1


	

	 


 
SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
 
		COMPANY:
	
		 	 	
		Multimedia Platforms, Inc.
	
	 
	 	 	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ C. Lawrence Rutstein
	 

	 
		C. Lawrence Rutstein
	 

	 
		Chairman of the Board
	 

		 	 	
		EXECUTIVE:
	
		 	 	
		By:	/s/ Robert Blair
	
			Robert Blair
	


    
    
2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1863

In Re: RICHARD L. BAST,

Debtor.

_________________________

RICHARD L. BAST,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

ROGER A. COX; COHEN, GETTINGS, DUNHAM & DAVIS,

PC; COHEN, DUNN & CURCIO, PC; CLAUDE DAVID

CONVISSER; VICTOR MICHAEL GLASBERG; JORDAN,

COYNE & SAVITS; CHARLES WARREN KRAMER; JODY L.

NEWMAN; BARBARA O. REEVES; DAVID B. SMITH;

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3988-PJM, BK-96-10118-DK, AP-97-1023-DK)

Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 23, 1999
2

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Bast, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Willard Dunham, Jr., Joel

L. Dahnke, COHEN, GETTINGS & DUNHAM, Arlington, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Bast appeals the district court’s orders dismissing

his bankruptcy appeal as untimely and denying his motion for reconsideration of the same. We affirm.

To the extent that Bast seeks to appeal the district court’s

disposition of the bankruptcy court’s September 2, 1997, order of

non-dischargeability, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Bast v. Cox, No. CA-97-3988-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 27, 1998).

To the extent that he seeks to appeal the denial of his motion to

alter or amend judgment filed in the bankruptcy court, we find that

Bast has waived all issues attendant to this motion by failing to

raise them in his informal brief. See Local Rule 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision and deny Bast’s

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrants


        Subsidiary                                           Jursidiction
        ----------                                           ------------

                      Statia Terminals International N. V.
                                and Subsidiaries

Statia Terminals International N.V.                    *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Delaware Holdco II                              *    Delaware
Statia Terminals Southwest, Inc.                       *    Texas
Statia Terminals Delaware, Inc.                        *    Delaware
Statia Terminals, Inc.                                 *    Delaware
Statia Terminals Puerto Rico Corporation              **    Puerto Rico
Statia Steamship Agency, Inc.                         **    Florida
W. P. Company, Inc.                                    *    Delaware
Statia Terminals Virgin Island Corporation            **    U. S. Virgin Islands
Seven Seas Steamship Company, Inc.                     *    Florida
Seven Seas Steamship Company (St. Eustatius) N.V.      *    Netherland Antilles
Seven Seas Steamship Company N.V.                     **    Netherland Antilles
Statia Terminals Corporation N.V.                      *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Terminals Canada, Incorporated                       Nova Scotia
Point Tupper Marine Services Limited                   *    Nova Scotia
Sabatrust Company N.V.                                 *    Netherland Antilles
Bicen Development Corporation N.V.                     *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Terminals N.V.                                  *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Laboratory Services N.V.                        *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Tugs N.V.                                       *    Netherland Antilles
Statia Shipping N.V.                                  **    Netherland Antilles


                      Statia Terminals Canada, Incorporated
                                 and Subsidiary

Point Tupper Marine Services Limited                   *    Nova Scotia



*    Subsidiary Guarantor of the $135.0 million, 11-3/4%  First Mortgage Notes.
**   Non-operating subsidiary to be dissolved.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 10244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-837]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Concepts (SFFAC) No. 5

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Concepts (SFFAC) No. 5, Definition of Elements and Basic Recognition 
Criteria for Accrual-Basis Financial Statements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of 
Procedure, as amended in April 2004, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued 
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concept 5, Definition of 
Elements and Basic Recognition Criteria for Accrual-Basis Financial 
Statements.
    Copies of the concept can be obtained by contacting FASAB at 202-
512-7350. The concept is also available on FASAB's home page http://www.fasab.gov/codifica.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 
441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 
512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463.

    Dated: February 20, 2008.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 08-837 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
EXHIBIT 21.1


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF RDO EQUIPMENT CO.


                                                            Name Under Which
Subsidiary                      State of Incorporation  Subsidiary Does Business
----------                      ----------------------  ------------------------

Hall GMC, Inc. (1)                   North Dakota            Corporate Name
     (85% owned)

Hall Truck Center, Inc. (1)          North Dakota            Corporate Name
     (85% owned)

Minnesota Valley Irrigation, Inc.      Minnesota             Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Financial Services Company       North Dakota            Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Mack Sales and Service,          North Dakota            Corporate Name
     Inc. (100% owned)

RDO Material Handling Co.              Minnesota             Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Rental Co.                         Minnesota             Corporate Name
     (80% owned)



----------------------------
(1)  Pending acquisition.
A I J Irl NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION 

### STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 

### 2022 CA 0979 

### SHERMA.

N WILLIAMS VERSUS 

### ANALYTIC STRESS RELIEVING, INC. AND CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC. DATE OF JUDGMENT. 

### MAR 13 2024 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PARISH OF ASCENSION, STATE OF LOUISIANA

NUMBER 118417, DIVISION C HONORABLE KATHERINE TESS STROMBERG, JUDGE

Robert Campbell Counsel for Plaintiff - Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Sherman Williams Malcolm J. Dugas, Jr. Gonzales, Louisiana Ernest Paul Gieger, Jr. 

### John E. W. Baay, I1 Morgan A. Druhan New Orleans, Louisiana F. Dominic Amato Denham Springs, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant - Appellant 

### Analytic Stress Relieving, Inc.

Counsel for Intervenor - Appellee Apache Industrial Services, Inc.

BEFORE: 

### McCLENDON, THERIOT, CHUTZ, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ. Disposition. MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED AND APPEAL DISMISSED. ANSWER DISMISSED.CHUTZ, J.



### Defendant -

appellant, Analytic Stress Relieving, Inc. (ASR), appeals the trial 

## court'sjudgment,granting in part a motion for ajudgment notwithstandingthe verdict JNOV) raised by plaintiff - appellee, Sherman Williams. Williams filed an answer to the appeal that he wished to have the court consider in the event it "reverses the trial 

### court's Wiling on the motion for [JNOV]." Prior to oral argument before the fivejudge panel, ASR advised the court that 

### the matter had settled. In a letter signed by counsel for both ASR and Williams, the 

### partiesjointly withdrewtheirrequest fororal argument noting, "We have resolved this 

### matterwith [Williams),via settlementthis morning." The letter also stated that counsel for both Williams and ASR " have signed this letter ... confirming our settlement" 

### ASR subsequently filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. Williams also sent 

## correspondence stating that hehad no objectiontothe motionto dismiss.Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and ASR' s appeal is dismissed. 

### Because this court did not reverse the trial court's ruling on its JNOV grant, the answer is moot. See Cat'sMeow,Ina a City ofNew Orleans,98-0601 ( La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1. 186, 1193 (" A case is ` moot' when a rendered judgment or decree can

serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect"). 

### Accordingly, we dismiss the answer. DECREE For these reasons, we grant ASR' s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. 

### The answer is dismissed. Each party is to beartheir own costs. MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED AND APPEAL DISMISSED. ANSWER DISMSSED.

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00621-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., a child,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM503338

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed late without a motion for extension of time to file 

the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. On October 29, 2015, we ordered Appellant to file a 

written response presenting a reasonable explanation for the late notice of appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

On November 13, 2015, Appellant filed a written response explaining the late notice of 

appeal; our October 29, 2015 order is satisfied. See Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 

668, 670 (Tex. 1989) (noting a “reasonable explanation” comprises all but “deliberate or 

intentional noncompliance”). 

We REINSTATE the appellate timetable. Appellant’s brief is due within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Liverpool Group, Inc., for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, I, Daniel K. Leonard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:  1. Such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Liverpool Group, Inc.  Dated:  October 25, 2010   LIVERPOOL GROUP, INC.  By:/s/  Daniel K. Leonard
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
bicx_ex101.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.1
 

	 
	1

	

	 


	 
	2

	

	 



	 
	3

	

	 



	 
	4

	

	 



	 
	5

	

	 


	 
	6

	

	 



	 
	7

	

	 



	 
	8

	

	 



	 
	9

	

	 



	 
	10

	

	 



	 
	11

	

	 



	 
	12

	

	 



	 
	13

	

	 


 
14
<PAGE>

                                      AMENDMENT


     THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of October 2, 1998 (this "Amendment")
by and among Atrium Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and
Randall S. Fojtasek ("Securityholder").
                                   R E C I T A L S:

     A.   The Company and Securityholder are parties to that certain Warrant
dated as of November 27, 1996 (the "Warrant").  All capitalized terms used
herein, not defined herein and defined in the Warrant shall have the meanings
set forth in the Warrant.

     B.   The Company and the Securityholder, among others, have entered into
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 3, 1998 (the
"Merger Agreement").

     C.   In connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated
in the Merger Agreement, the Company and the Securityholder desire to amend the
Warrant as set forth in this Amendment.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the covenants, agreements and other
promises set forth in this Amendment, the Warrant and the Merger Agreement, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Securityholder, intending to be
legally bound, hereby amend the Warrant as follows:

                                 A G R E E M E N T S:

     A.   The definition of "B Exercise Price" included in Article V of the
Warrant shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

     " 'B Exercise Price' means, for a particular exercise of the B Warrant, a
per share price of $0.01, as such per share price may be adjusted from time to
time pursuant to Article IV hereof."

     B.   This Agreement shall become effective at the Effective Time (as
defined in the Merger Agreement) and shall be of no force or effect if the
Merger Agreement is terminated.

     C.   The terms of the Warrant shall be unchanged other than the above
provision specifically amended hereby.

                     [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment in
one or more counterparts (all of which shall constitute one and the same
agreement) as of the day and year first above written.

                                   SECURITYHOLDER



                                   /s/ Randall S. Fojtasek
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Randall S. Fojtasek


                                   ATRIUM CORPORATION



                                   By: /s/ Jeff L. Hull
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Jeff L. Hull
                                      Chief Financial Officer
No. 1121, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Felicia Dubrovsky*for the United States.

#### Goforth *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-940 Lower Tribunal No. 19-1776

________________ Diana Lebron, etc., Appellant, vs. In re: Guardianship of Esmerida Gomez,

Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. Law Offices of Mendez & Mendez, P.A., and Sergio L. Mendez, Daniel J. Mendez and Lorena Friger, for appellant. Harper Meyer Perez Hagen Albert Dribin & DeLuca LLP, and Michael A. Dribin and Alexander I. Cohen, for appellee Anwar Hazzi. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Pig Ventures Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A.
      Kuehne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                John A. KuehneJohn
                A. Kuehne
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              November
                14, 2008